The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance

Saturday, February 18, AD 2017


Something for the weekend.  The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance sung by Gene Pitney.  Originally scheduled to be the theme song for the movie The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, the song was written by Burt Bacharach and Hal David.  For some reason the song was cut from the film.  It rose to Number four.  Some viewers of the film erroneously recall it being the theme song for the film.

Continue reading...

Leave a Reply

Video Clips Worth Watching: Wayne v. Marvin

Friday, February 17, AD 2017


The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance (1962), perhaps the greatest of Westerns, contains this gem of a scene with John Wayne, Lee Marvin, Jimmy Stewart, Strother Marvin, Lee Van Cleef and Woody Strode.  Marvin as Liberty Valance is the archetypal mercenary gunslinger, his days, and the days of his kind, about to come to an end.  Wayne as Tom Doniphon, rancher, is the obverse of Marvin, a man just as tough as Valance, if not tougher, but no bully.  However, his time is also closing.  Their destroyer?   The almost clown like figure of Ransom Stoddard, portrayed by Jimmy Stewart.  He knows nothing about guns, but he knows a lot about law, and law and civilization are fast coming to the range.  This is John Ford’s eulogy to the Old West, and to this type of Western.

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Video Clips Worth Watching: Wayne v. Marvin

  • This is an excellent post. The “Frontier Thesis” was abroad in which many believed that the end of the frontier represented the beginning of a new stage in American life and that the United States.

    An artist’s requiem to the “Old West” can be seen in the works of Frederick Remington – his paintings and sculptures.

  • “Marvin as Liberty Valance is the archetypal mercenary gunslinger, his days, and the days of his kind are about to come to an end.”
    No disrespect here. It occurred to me that the gunslingers and bullies of yesterday have only traded iron for text. Today’s full of the Liberty Valances of yesterday. Some use iron. Cop killers use iron. Berkeley thugs use gasoline and rocks. To me these hateslingers are made from the same mud as Liberty. Different times, same bullies.

Leave a Reply

Quotes Suitable for Framing: Henry Adams

Friday, February 17, AD 2017




Power when wielded by abnormal energy is the most serious of facts, and all Roosevelt’s friends know that his restless and combative energy was more than abnormal. Roosevelt, more than any other man living within the range of notoriety, showed the singular primitive quality that belongs to ultimate matter,—the quality that mediæval theology assigned to God,—he was pure act.

Henry Adams, The Education of Henry Adams (1918)

Continue reading...

One Response to Quotes Suitable for Framing: Henry Adams

Leave a Reply

PopeWatch: Burke to Guam

Friday, February 17, AD 2017





Just when you thought that things couldn’t get much weirder at the Vatican:


Cardinal Raymond Burke has traveled to Guam, to take testimony in the canonical trial of Archbishop Anthony Apuron of Agana.

Archbishop Apuron, who has been accused of molesting a number of young men, was relieved of his pastoral responsibilities in the Guam archdiocese last June. He has insisted on his innocence and refused to resign. However, in October the Vatican named an American prelate, Archbishop Michael Byrnes, as coadjutor with “special faculties” to take over leadership of the archdiocese.

At his installation, Archbishop Byrnes revealed that the Vatican had begun a canonical trial of Archbishop Apuron on the sex-abuse charges. The Vatican press office has now confirmed this, and disclosed that Cardinal Burke was named as the presiding judge in the case.

Continue reading...

4 Responses to PopeWatch: Burke to Guam

Leave a Reply

The Great Anti-Trump Crusade of 2017

Thursday, February 16, AD 2017

I believe Trump to be the single greatest domestic threat this nation has ever faced. Why?  Because as bad as the Civil War was, Bobby Lee did not have the power to eradicate human life on earth. Trump literally has the power to end civilization.  And it is not at all out of the realm of possibility that he could do it because he is not a normal person.  He is crazy and unstable and  a liar even to himself.  And he has demoted the Chair of the Joint Chiefs and the Director of National Intelligence and placed a racist, conspiratorial kook who has said he has “no doubt” we will be at war with nuclear colossus China–one-fifth of the world’s population–in a couple of years.  More than that, his seduction of Christians is a grave peril to eternal souls and to the peace of the Church.

Mark Shea




Dave Griffey at Daffey Thoughts directs our attention to a superb post in reference to the anti-Trump hysteria that has possessed the left:

Or Deus Vult for you sticklers out there.  To read some anti-Trump Catholics, you’d think opposition to Trump is all one needs for salvation.  Embrace evil, teach heresy, endorse blasphemy, it matters not.  Just go on crusade against Trump and you are in the good graces of, well, people who think a lot about their political opinions.

Thank goodness there are saner minds out there, like that of Michael Flynn.  No, not that Michael Flynn.  This Michael Flynn, who looked at the Big Ban controversy and discovered there really is a problem in our current state of affairs. And it isn’t always ‘them’.

Read on, and you’ll discover a crack in the foundation that is growing, and growing, and growing.   Trump will last four years or less.  But the threats to our nation’s future that are rising in the current melee – courtesy of both sides – will last.




Go here to comment.  Since Dave posts at Patheos, that home of the unhinged left, the left wing comments are often a hoot.  Go here to read the TOF post:  The Rule of Law:


A slow-motion Contitutional crisis is brewing. The Permanent Bureaucracy is in revolt.

While many federal workers have begun to consider avenues of dissent only since the inauguration, others had been preparing for weeks. In the last days of Obama’s tenure, several departments catalogued data and reports and got them into the hands of allies outside the government.

That ought to seem dangerous to anyone who loves democracy. But then, the Enlightened regard the American people as irredeemably stoopid.

the federal employees have been “in regular consultation with recently departed Obama-era political appointees about what they can do to push back against the new president’s initiatives. Some federal employees have set up social media accounts to anonymously leak word of changes that Trump appointees are trying to make.”

Continue reading...

26 Responses to The Great Anti-Trump Crusade of 2017

  • This ridiculous charge that the federal Civil Service is opposed to the Trump Administration is deeply offensive to the majority of us. Most of us do our jobs, no matter who is President. We did what we were directed to do under President Obama and we will do what we are directed to do under President Trump. That is the reality for the vast, vast, VAST majority of us.

    There is a small cadre of morons who fail to see that no administration gives a thought to our work. They do not grasp that what we do is so mundane that it is inconsequential to upper management, except in the aggregate. This is as it should be since the People are not served by our political leanings, they are served by our getting their permit completed quickly, properly, and efficiently… Or, whatever other mundane task it is that these complaining idiots, utterly oblivious to how blessed they are to even HAVE a job that provides set pay and benefits and the best protections on the planet… (Protections that drive managers like me through the roof with irritation at not being lawfully able to remove bad employees.)

    This “oh my Gosh! The world is ending” minority is extremely vocal while the majority are just rolling along, doing what they have always done. There is another group of folks, mostly law enforcement, who are positively pumped up by Trump’s win, following six years of not enforcing most of our federal laws. For us, sitting a desk and passing on investigations because they do not fit the approved narrative has been a horror. We are excited, not because we are Republicans or anything but because you hired us to enforce the law and that is what we WANT to do.

    So, please don’t buy this lie that the federal Civil Service is upset by a Trump win. It isn’t true.

  • David, you’re not the only civil servant (or former civil servant) around here.

    And as one, surely you know that it doesn’t take a huge minority to gum up the works and disrupt plans.

    So, please don’t buy this lie that the federal Civil Service is upset by a Trump win. It isn’t true.

    If you want to disrupt the meme that you’re a monolithic group (which nobody around here has said), then don’t phrase things as if you’re a monolithic group. Otherwise anybody can disprove you by simply pointing to any federal employee unhappy with Trump – which there are plenty.

  • I do not work in govt, but from my observation of the US NRC inspectors at commercial nuclear power plants, and US NRC auditors and reviewers over nuclear steam supply companies like mine, what David Spaulding writes is 100% correct. With the notable exception of Gregory Jackzo, former NRC Chairperson appointed by the Obamanation of Desolation, even people as high up as Commissioners are usually quite apolitical. They have a job to do – nuclear safety – and it doesn’t matter which political party is in charge, nor should it. Anti-nuke nut case Jackzo was sadly an exception to that rule.

  • Re: General Flynn. if the treasonous spooks had acted on intel concerning a jihadi murderer, the left would be screaming that they first didn’t get a warrant.

    Lets’ shut down the domstic big data spying piut inb y Bush and Obama and fire all the NSA spies. Its’ a start, and like the fed they have been consistently ineffective in keeping us safe.

    Mark-who should be mortified upon re-reading that paragraph. It’s utilitarian in that it provides additional evidentiary support for the conclusion that everything that lunatic writes is bullshit.

    Advice concerning the idiotic left’s recent embrace of violence: don’t bring a baseball bat to a gun fight. I’m going to the range this afternoon. There are enough bullets to make a dent in the problem.

  • This is a problem which could be addressed, if the Senate Republican caucus was ever interested in accomplishing much of anything (rather than playing footsie with each other and tossing bon bons at Mr. Donohue of the Chamber of Commerce.

  • Thank you for the correction, Mr. Winchester. I’ll be sure to be more exact in my language in the future.

  • NP David. Hold the line. The honest man must always be vigilant against the dishonest one. Interesting times ahead for the civil servant.

  • What is blinding Trump protesters that they cannot see why Donald Trump is such a godsend to our country? I don’t understand the hatred. Trump will make our country great again or at least try. Obama, on the other hand, was out to destroy our way of life and was in league with the powers of darkness. One can only conclude that Trump protestors are inspired by the devil. Anyone have the slightest disagreement with this observation?

  • Let us not ascribe to Satan what can be explained otherwise. Under Obama I think leftists in this country thought they had reached the promised land. Even as they lost control of Congress and were decimated at the State level, they clung to this belief. When Trump, Donald Trump!, defeated the chosen successor of Obama, they suddenly had a crisis of faith, and that is precisely the source of their hysteria.

  • Correct, Mac. I think “The Spanish Inquisition” is another metaphor for this leftist “pomp and circumstances.”

  • Really! You need to look at reality. Trump is a minor threat to what has been going on in this Nation for the last 100 years.

  • I have never, in my lifetime, even during the Reagan era, known so many good and godly people, who have and will continue, to pray for Donald Trump’s candidacy and presidency. Is he a perfect man-a Saint? No. Is he the only man who could have accomplished what he has?yes! We will continue to pray daily for this President and for our Country!

  • I wish these hysterical ninnies would find out how the Nuclear Football actually works….

    Seriously, they think, what, Mattis is going to roll over and give Trump whatever he wants when it comes to launching nukes? Pull the other one, it’s got bells on.

  • (This is ignoring the whole “Destroy all human life” thing.)

  • Hildebeast in a drunken fit of rage would have been a safer bet?

  • The Left is apoplectic over the election of Trump. He has upset their rotten applecart and threatens to undo all their efforts to legislate guns, global climate (Where is Canute when we need him?), open borders, population control, the cashless society, and a host of other things are all part of the global government agenda of the Left. Trump’s election, the likely election of Marine LePen in France, and Brexit in the UK are all part of a widespread awakening to the insidious agenda of the Left. Our main stream media is a propaganda machine for the Left. Our schools have become training camps for little socialist zombies. Our entertainment sector is a pleasure pill factory to keep the population distracted and apathetic. The parties of the Left are substantially inhabited by atheists who seek to free us from traditional morality and enslave us to the rule of philosopher kings. Bitter Clingers! Unite!

  • the likely election of Marine LePen in France,

    She’s a good bet to win a plurality in the 1st round of the Presidential election, but the polls on contingencies show her being shellacked in a runoff by either M. Fillion or M. Macron. As French pols go, M. Fillion is a good guy. M. Macron is a Europhile screwball.

  • It is the leftover group of Obama loyalists that think they cannot be removed from the NSA/CIA, etc. believe in the ‘Shadow’ government being created by Obama and funded by Soros, who as a Jew during WW2 helped Hitler round up Jews for the concentration camps.

    The Department of Justice needs to bring Obama and Soros into Court and shut down the illegal funding thru a suppose nonpolitical group.

  • I have no problem agreeing that we can look at chaotic daily events now, and at the seemingly willful blindness of Trump protestors, and ascribe this dis-orientation or confusion to the influence of the devil.
    If people are not “prayed up” if we are out on a limb without our full armor, if we drift away from the safety of the sheepfold, we can all be so easily targeted by that figure of the shadows known as Satan.who does not relent.
    Christ Jesus Victor! Christ Jesus Ruler!

  • “David, you’re not the only civil servant (or former civil servant) around here.

    And as one, surely you know that it doesn’t take a huge minority to gum up the works and disrupt plans.”

    Uh. If you actually have any experience dealing with beaureaucrat scrim the outside, you will know for a fact that it only takes ONE to cause a huge problem on multiple levels.

  • “One can only conclude that Trump protestors are inspired by the devil. Anyone have the slightest disagreement with this observation?”

    The Bible says that Satan is a liar, the Father of Lies, a murderer, and that he comes to kill, steel, & destroy. These rioters are doing ALL of these things in kind. They may not know it, but Satan is indeed their inspiration.

  • Some federal agencies are stacked with ideologues. The Department of Education is one; EPA is another. The Civil rights division of the Department of Justice is still another. In everything they do they try to put their thumb on the scale.

  • Now that I have unburdened myself via the rant posted above, I may soberly suggest the Trump Administration attend itself to necessary business of turning out the politically appointed holdovers from the Obama Maladministration. Their appointments are pro tempore and the sooner they go the better. Any others who become insubordinate must go as well. As to the “Shadow Government” of Obama, let that man and his coconspirators take care. We are currently at war. Beware actions that are tantamount to treason. We notice that Hillary has maintained a measured silence. After all, why jiggle all those skeletons in her closet? Whether she should be prosecuted is for others to determine. Perhaps the integrity of the rule of law demands it, rather than petty vindictiveness on anyone’s part. Then, would that do more harm than good?

  • There’s quite a bloc of federal agencies begging to be dissolved, reconstituted, or replaced. Since there isn’t any candy in it for Mr. Donohue of the Chamber of Commerce, I’ll wager the Republican majority in the Senate will block any attempts.

  • Art Deco wrote, “[T]he polls on contingencies show her being shellacked in a runoff by either M. Fillion or M. Macron…”
    You are right, the FN will gain about 35% in the 1st ballot and, in the run-off, the other 65% will vote for the 2nd candidate, whoever he is. The fact that M. Fillon is implicated in a financial scandal and M. Macron has no track-record in electoral politics probably means it will be he. The fact that he is an Enarch & Sciences Po graduate and worked for Rothschilds means that many will see him as a safe pair of hands.

  • I seem to recall there is a passage in the bible where the evil conspire to bring down the good because he forces them to confront their sin. We all knew that Donald Trump was raw and imperfect but he is who we have and, God willing, will succeed in doing what is right. For those who deny that the civil service is obstructionist, they need only look at the Department of Education and the EPA. David Spaulding is about half right. There is good and bad in the rank and file. Speaking as one who spent thirty years in DOD, I have seen both. The few bad can undo the work of many more of the good. If that is kept in mind, the problems can be more easily identified and dealt with. The most significant factor blocking successful government today, no matter how you define it, is simply that government has passed the size limit to be effective. There is a natural desire to control and to grow and this has redounded to just the opposite.

Leave a Reply

PopeWatch: Taking It

Thursday, February 16, AD 2017



For a Pope who dishes out insults readily to those who have the temerity to differ from him, Pope Francis seems remarkably sensitive to insults aimed at him:


Pope Francis on Sunday criticised the everyday use of “insults”, an apparent reference to anonymous attacks he has faced over the last week in Rome.

In his weekly Angelus address, Francis highlighted Jesus’ commandment, “Thou shalt not kill,” saying the edict applied not only to actual homicide, “but also to those behaviours which offend the dignity of the human person, including insulting words.”

“Certainly, these injurious words do not have the same gravity and do not lead to the same verdict of guilt as homicide, but they are placed on the same level because they are the premise of more serious acts and reveal the same malevolence,” he said.

Francis may have been referring to criticism he has received this past week, as well as tensions over the manoeuvring of conservatives opposed to his reforms of Church teaching and governance.

“We are used to insults,” he said. “It is like saying, ‘Good morning’.”

But “who insults his brother kills that brother in his heart,” the pontiff added.

Continue reading...

8 Responses to PopeWatch: Taking It

  • Is it an insult to tell Jorge Bergoglio the truth?

  • Was it an insult when the leader of the Catholic Church quipped; “What’s a matter, are your hands stuck together?”
    An altar boy probably thought it an insult coming from a Pope.

    The old adage applies. “If ya can dish it out be ready to take it.”

  • It’s humbling – even terrifying – that a person can devote himself to the service of God and live so long without knowing his own weaknesses.

  • So PF is rewriting the examination of conscience? Used to be curses and insults came under other commandments. His commentary could be stretch in many different ways. Some will think that he is giving the green light to crimes of passion/feuds in raising insults to a higher level. Is he also saying to insult him is a mortal sin? As a local in my neck of the woods would say, “He generates much confusement.”

  • Those of you who are afraid the pope is making the Catholic Church into a Protestant church–Have a point in many areas. However, it will have to be a liberal Protestant church–maybe even along the lines of those that accept members of all faiths & no faith s.a. Atheists. I was a very conservative Protestant before becoming a very conservative Catholic. My conservative friends in the Protestant churches would NEVER join the type of “Catholic” church that the pope wishes to build. It is down right emabarrasing to read on social media my conservative Protestant friends’ horror over the pope’s last banishment of a sound Catholic Bishop or one of the pope’s latest anti-Catholic pro increments. *long sigh*.

  • Sorry! That last statement should have said “latest anti-Catholic pronouncements.”

  • “insult to tell Jorge Bergoglio the truth?”

    I am constantly finding that those on the Left claim offense for a multitude of reasons on of which is as an excuse to claim “higher ground” or a moral superiority to those with whom the Left disagree. And the pope is a Leftist.

    I have taken to telling people that stating the truth is not offensive unless the truth shoes them in a bad light. I also tell them that just because They choose to be offended doesn’t mean that I choose to take responsibility for their offense.

    The Left is quite adept at taking offense yet could care less if they give offense or cause others damage.

    I’m with Rush Limbaugh. He says there is no compromise with the Left. We must simply defeat the Left. May it be so.

  • To Christian Teacher: your comments remind me of the damage done by Liberal Catholics in the wake of Vatican II who drove ,many Catholics into Conservative protestant Churches.

Leave a Reply

PopeWatch: Cardinal Coccopalmerio

Wednesday, February 15, AD 2017



Father Z brings us the details on Cardinal Coccopalmerio’s official or unofficial, response or nonresponse to the five dubia of the Four Cardinals:



In the shallow, liberal, Italian Catholic weekly Panorama we are informed about a booklet now out over the name of Card. Coccopalmerio, Prefect of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts.  It is ballyhooed as “the response” to the Five Dubia of the Four “intransigent” Cardinals, who are dissenters because they are defending doctrine.

Of course it can’t be that, can it?  The response to the Dubia should come from the Holy Father (to whom they were submitted) or from the CDF (whose Prefect has spoken unofficially about the issues but who hasn’t issued anything official).

Beware. When you read Panorama your IQ is likely to drop.  The use of verbs would help their writers come off as less smarmy.  But I digress.

Here is some of the piece in my fast translation.  My emphases  and comments.

In a little book on the reasons why the Church can’t turn back in the face of those who “are not in tune with Catholic doctrine”.

“Divorced and remarried, unmarried couples living together, are certainly not models of unions in harmony with Catholic doctrine, but the Church cannot look the other way. For which reason the sacraments of reconciliation and of communion ought to be given also to so-called wounded families[a euphemism intended to arouse emotion rather than thought, empathy rather than clarity] and to those who even though living in situations not in line with the traditional canons on matrimony, express a sincere desire to draw closer to the sacraments after an adequate period of discernment.” [Not just “canons”.  They are not in line with Christ’s teaching either, or the perennial doctrine of the Church.

This is the pointed, calm and precise response that Pope Francis gives [Noooo…. Pope Francis didn’t give it.  The Cardinal did.  But this is what they want you to accept.] to those especially within the church and even in the College of Cardinals, who continue to express doubts about the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia in which, for the first time, there is foreseen the possibility of admitting to the sacraments those who contract a second marriage, unmarried couples living together and those people who live together in deformity with ecclesial directions in the matter of nuptial unions.

An indirect response, in any event, [See the slight of hand?] but [BUT!] the fruit of a deep canonical and ecclesiological study made, at the request of the same Pontiff, by one of the closest and most trusted collaborators, Cardinal Francesco Coccopalmerio, President of the Pontifical Council for Legislative Texts (the “ministry” of justice of the Holy See).

The text – a booklet of only 30 pages entitled, “The 8th chapter of the Post-Synodal Apostolic Exhortation Amoris Laetitia” – was printed by the Vatican Press and on Wednesday 8 February arrived in religious bookstores which surround the Vatican.

The Doubts of the Four Cardinals

An initiative, they [the famous “they”] explained in the Vatican, that aims to “clarify” all the “doubts” raised by the most traditionalist elements bound with a vengeance [How mean!  How merciless!  How … mean!] to the defense of ecclesial doctrine in the matter of matrimonial life and of access to the sacraments.  [What sort of surreal, Dali-esque landscape has the Church become if those who defend doctrine are suddenly the dissenters?  Clocks are melting off the sides of tables.]


To all appearances, like a “normal” request for canonical clarifications, [This is more slight of hand: the Dubia ask for doctrinal clarifications, not just canonical.  So, the respose from an official of a canonical office isn’t going to take care of the doubts.] in reality a gesture of clear though polite disobedience on the part of four members of the College of Cardinals the organism which by its very nature is called to back up the reigning Pope in the governance of the Church.  [“Those dirty rotten mean old cardinals!  They are mean old meanies!”  (That’s the general level of the reader of Panorama, by the way.)]

It is normal that if a Cardinal feels the need to have clarifications on certain matters he can ask for them calmly – they assure us across the Tiber – in the course of personal audiences with the Pope. It is another thing to publish an open letter and bring up doubts and discontents in public opinion. A clearly offensive gesture toward the Pope almost completely like those which are used in interviews. As, for example, the German Cardinal Gerhard Ludwig Müller, Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, did in recent days, who, in a newspaper, openly criticized admission to the sacraments of couples living together and the divorced and remarried because, he admonished, Doctrine “is to be left alone” (la Dottrina “non si tocca”).  [Do you see what they did?  They smear Müller in order to raise Coccopalmerio above him as an authority.  Thus the Doctrinal Cardinal is out and the Canonical Cardinal is in.]


This is another confusing puzzle piece to deal with.  It is confusing because it has the appearance of official approval (it was published by the Vatican Press), but it remains a non-response response to the Five Dubia.  That’s probably why the ad hominem attacks lace the Panorama piece.

In any event, we still – prayerfully and patiently – await greater clarity from some with the true authority to issue what are manifest and actual responses to the Dubia.  Or else… we await a statement that they are not going to be answered.

Clocks melting off the edges of tables.  Elephants on stilts.  This situation is getting really strange.

Continue reading...

5 Responses to PopeWatch: Cardinal Coccopalmerio

Leave a Reply

Bill Kristol Reveals Who Is the Fascist

Tuesday, February 14, AD 2017

20 Responses to Bill Kristol Reveals Who Is the Fascist

  • What does he mean the the “deep state?” Does he prefer a strong centralized state? Then I’m glad I cancelled my subscription to The Weekly Standard years ago.

  • Rule by un-elected bureaucrats in positions of great power.

  • He means those who never leave power, no matter who wins the election. Those in the permanent govt caste who move from govt job to govt job with high salaries and who leave oceans of devastation behind them, but never suffer any accountability.

  • Kristol has become a strange caricature of fury and futility. Every appearance lessens his stature, every remark indicts his integrity.

  • Quite the world we live in. Or perhaps, just the old coming back to life. Nothing new under the sun.

  • It’s truly amazing how President Trump causes his opponents to reveal their true selves. At long last, no more pretending. We get to see the leftists for who they really are. Might makes right, nothing more.

  • Think of the deep state as a guerrilla army of unaccountable, unelected bureaucrats that have both the motivations and capabilities to crush a presidency. Then, add in the lying media and crooked academy.

    15 Feb 2017, Damon Linker, “The whole episode is evidence of the precipitous and ongoing collapse of America’s democratic institutions — not a sign of their resiliency. Flynn’s ouster was a soft coup (or political assassination) engineered by anonymous intelligence community bureaucrats. The results might be salutary, but this isn’t the way a liberal democracy is supposed to function.”

  • He should channel President Reagan and the air traffic controllers’ union.

    President Donald J. Trump should fire all Federal intelligence bureaucrats (they’re abject failures, anyhow) and allow them to re-apply for their jobs with required polygraph testing and, if necessary, water-boarding to identify and prosecute find the leakers.

  • One of the curios of these times is that much of the starboard commentariat has revealed itself to have only a tenuous sense of the concerns of their own readership, maybe because they never meet them in the flesh. One grossly amusing activity is to read the comment boxes at National Review whenever their managing editor pens something for the publication. They savage him, often with good reason. Yet, for some reason, Richard Lowry has thought it useful to employ him for the last dozen years and to have gone so far as to eject Mark Steyn from their stable of contributors when this Steorts fellow got his nose out of joint. Lowry also employs Kevin Williamson, who despises ordinary wage earners. Dr. Kristol has recently revealed he has a low opinion of ordinary, just not the frank hostility you get from Williamson. Then there’s George Will, who probably should have retired in 2003.

  • They’re not so much commentators as courtiers, seeking to ingratiate themselves amongst the wielders of actual power. And they truly find the peasants revolting. The only job for the rank and file is to be properly vote-farmed every two years and offered only the carefully-monitored opportunity to man phone banks or stuff envelopes. Heaven forfend they should elect someone who actually suggests they might have legitimate concerns about the economic, social and political order!

  • Last year during the campaign I did ask Rubio and Cruz each about how they could plan to deal with the deep corruption in the various departments if they should be elected. Both were not prepared or did not wish to answer me. I don’t know if anyone could do a better job than Trump is trying to do here. I pray that JMJ will see to it that the evil doers will be revealed. Brennan has always seemed particularly bad to me. Also, remember the smug look on the face of the IRS guy who took Lois Lerner’s place?

  • I think the fellow you’re recalling is John Koskinen, whom Trump has yet to fire. He didn’t take Lois Lerner’s place. He was the bureau chiefe, two or three strata to her north in the organization.

    Cruz and Rubio are both bereft of administrative experience. Cruz, however, is quite principled and he’s a standard deviation’s worth smarter than Rubio. I suspect Cruz would have been very effective at gaming subtle ways to frustrate the lawfare artists on and off the bench. The problem, though, is that the gatekeeper positions in Congress (as well as most of the Republican seats in the Senate and a good many in the House) are held by careerists who have no interest in anything but tossing some candy at their Chamber of Commerce clients. The Senate majority leader is particularly odious. They loathe Cruz because he has actual political principles.

  • I met Bill Kristol many years ago at an event at a clients home in Ct. He was pompous the as he is now, the Trump election has revealed the progressive, liberal he is.

  • Samuel Adams was temperamentally similar to Trump. We are in the midst of a civil war that doesn’t have geographical boundaries. The Donald is something of a counter-revolution against the left, which has absconded with the government via a coup. It remains to be seen who will win.

  • What does he mean the the “deep state?”

    A good example would be the lawfare artists conducting the appalling ‘John Doe’ investigations in Wisconsin. The linchpin was a public prosecutor married to a teachers’ union official.

  • Pingback: Bill Kristol all in for legacy bureaucrats – Blithe Spirit
  • Art – Kevin Williamson is as good as any columnist working today. He’s like a socon PJ O’Rourke. Between him, Nordlinger, and Goldberg, NRO has the best stable around.

  • He was pompous the as he is now, the Trump election has revealed the progressive, liberal he is.

    For crying out loud. He’s a standard-issue BosWash corridor Republican. So’s Lindsay Graham. His problem is that his mind is steeped in his social world. He’s a lapsed professor and magazine editor. His father was an editor. His mother was a professor. All four grandparents were born in the pale of settlement. Both grandfathers by 1930 owned their own businesses. His brother-in-law is a professor. His wife has a Harvard doctorate. His sister met her husband when he was working on her father’s staff. His son-in-law is an opinion journalist. The whole family lives in inner ring burbs in NoVa. The HVAC tech living in Akron is somewhat remote from his mind.

  • John Stuart Mill gives a very good description of the Deep State:

    “The Tsar himself is powerless against the bureaucratic body; he can send any one of them to Siberia, but he cannot govern without them or against their will. On every decree of his they have a tacit veto, by merely refraining from carrying it into effect. In countries of more advanced civilisation and of a more insurrectionary spirit, the public, accustomed to expect everything to be done for them by the State, or at least to do nothing for themselves without asking from the State not only leave to do it, but even how it is to be done, naturally hold the State responsible for all evil which befalls them, and when the evil exceeds their amount of patience, they rise against the government, and make what is called a revolution; whereupon somebody else, with or without legitimate authority from the nation, vaults into the seat, issues his orders to the bureaucracy, and everything goes on much as it did before; the bureaucracy being unchanged, and nobody else being capable of taking their place.”

  • Of course Kristol prefers the ‘deep state’– the only folks breaking rules are the ones he agrees with.

    If it became standard procedure for all of the gov’t employees to abuse their power, he’d be a lot less pleased!

Leave a Reply

3 Responses to One Year Later

  • A truly Godly man if ever there was one.

  • I wonder, if he is in heaven,if he hasn’t been spending his time influencing the election from that “foreign land”

  • A few years ago, I bought a copy of Scalia Dissents, a collection of Justice
    Scalia’s dissenting Supreme Court decisions. In lesser hands, such a book would be
    likely useful only as a cure for insomnia, but Scalia’s were no such lesser hands. For
    example, on religious freedom, he wrote: “I find it a sufficient embarrassment that
    our Establishment Clause jurisprudence regarding holiday displays has come to
    require scrutiny more commonly associated with interior decorators than with
    the judiciary.”

    And here is his critique of the fashion for legislating from the bench: “Evidently,
    the governing standard is to be what might be called the unfettered wisdom of a
    majority of this Court, revealed to an obedient people on a case-by-case basis.”

    God bless him. His was a magnificent Supreme Court appointment, and he is
    sorely missed.

Leave a Reply

PopeWatch: Bannon

Tuesday, February 14, AD 2017



Further evidence that the Catholic left are busily attempting to depict the thrice-divorced Steve Bannon as a radical Catholic traditionalist.  From Breitbart, of which Bannon was formerly editor:

On the far-left MSNBC cable television channel Sunday, Father James Martin said that Steve Bannon is a “radical traditionalist” opposing Pope Francis’s reforms and pining “for a time when the Church was purer.”

In a segment titled “Steve Bannon vs. the Pope,” Martin suggested that Bannon uses Church teaching to promote “racist, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic sentiments.”

Apparently, in Father Martin’s version of the gospel, it is wrong to oppose radical Islamists, but it is fine to bear false witness against a fellow Christian, running him down with baseless slanders and slurs.

Bannon is not only an anti-Pope Francis, Martin alleged, “I would also say he is an anti-Pope Benedict and an anti-Pope John Paul.”

“All these people were about economic justice,” Martin said, implying that Steve Bannon is not.


Father Martin also made the astonishing claim that Jesus Christ does not share Steve Bannon’s view of Catholicism as the “Church militant,” which he said is a synonym of “radical traditionalists.”

“I don’t think it was Jesus’ point of view either,” he said.

What Father Martin fails to mention is that his religious order—the Society of Jesus (the Jesuits)—was approved in 1540 by Pope Paul III with the papal bull titled “To the Government of the Church Militant” and the Jesuits were commonly referred to as the pope’s “shock troops.”

Moreover, as literate Catholics know, the “Church militant” is a common expression employed by countless Catholic saints including Pope John Paul II to distinguish the members of the church on earth still doing battle with evil from those who have already died.

In his most famous text, The Spiritual Exercises, Saint Ignatius Loyola—the founder of the Jesuits—wrote out a series of rules that should be followed “to foster the true attitude of mind we ought to have in the church militant.”

Continue reading...

13 Responses to PopeWatch: Bannon

  • When everybody with whom Father Martin disagrees is a radical traditionalist (Is there anything wrong with it?), nobody is.

    If one believes the Pope and clergy ought to be more concerned with the salvation of souls than “economic justice” (whatever that is) or “social justice,” is a rad trad. Then, I am one.

    Bless their hearts. Father Martin and his ilk hate you. Act accordingly. Pray for them.

  • Here we see the pot calling the kettle, “black.” “Martin suggested that Bannon uses Church teaching to promote ‘racist, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic sentiments.'”

    That is Martin’s (and all liberals’) modus operandi. Politicize, subvert, and weaponize a sentence or two from a Gospel or two to advance “economic justice” (whatever that is); regularize or sacramentalize adultery, fornication, and sodomy; fundamentally transform evil, unjust America; etc. Then, proceed to damn to Hell, or hand over to the Inquisition, anyone that disagrees.

    The stupid, it hurts.

  • I guess the Jesuits have gone from “shock troops” to “shocked troops.”

  • The left wing slant of the Pope and the Fr. Martin’s of the world will bring in approximately 7 people back or to the Church while alienating millions more.
    How’s Anglicanism doing?

  • The spiritual and corporal works of mercy belong to the Church and the conscience of the person. Involuntary charity is extortion.
    Capitalism may be defined as giving to the customer what he needs (not what he wants) to survive and the customer giving to the merchant what he needs (not what he wants) to survive, in the absence of avarice, love of money, contempt for the customer and for the merchant, guile in the transaction; because all valid contracts, material and metaphysical, are made in the human beings’ immortal soul.

  • Father Martin also made the astonishing claim that Jesus Christ does not share Steve Bannon’s view of Catholicism as the “Church militant,” which he said is a synonym of “radical traditionalists.”

    “I don’t think it was Jesus’ point of view either,” he said.

    Funny, because if you know anything about 1st century Israel, you’d know that Jesus was raised in and came from an ultra-traditionalist town – the modern day equivalent of the “buckle of the bible-belt.” May not make Him immediately fundamentalist but it does make the picture more complex.

    See: (relevant bit starts at 8:45 in case the link below doesn’t start on time)

  • The night before last I went with a Protestant family member to her “church” which is evangelical (no, I am not converting over to the heretics; if I intend that, then all I have to do is heep lauds onto Jorge Bergoglio’s head). I heard more correct teaching about social justice from a preacher in breakway Protestantism than I ever will from this “Father”James Martin. Kindly read my commentary here; it’s too long to post in the comment space at TAC (you’ve been warned!):

  • Time to dust off Pope Clement’s Dominus ac Redemptor the papal brief promulgated on 21 July 1773 by which Pope Clement XIV suppressed the Society of Jesus. Today’s Jesuits once again do not appear to be a net positive. Look at their colleges for instance. Scandalous!

  • Fr Martin is a perfect fit for MSNBC whose left-wing propaganda is irrelevant to normal Americans. Accordingly, it is doubtful he did much harm.

  • LCQ, this is relevant to your post.

    (It’s funny, I thought Jesus said render to Ceaser and render to God etc – who knew the poor belonged to Ceaser.)

  • Caesar does such a good job taking care of the poor, too, by making so many more of them. Catholics who look to Caesar to truly relieve the poor, and allow them to provide for their own needs, are asking for a greater miracle than the Resurrection. As the song says:

    Give a man a free house and he’ll bust out the windows
    Put his family on food stamps, now he’s a big spender
    no food on the table and the bills ain’t paid
    ‘Cause he spent it on cigarettes and P.G.A.
    They’ll turn us all into beggars ’cause they’re easier to please
    They’re feeding our people that Government Cheese

    Give a man free food and he’ll figure out a way
    To steal more than he can eat ’cause he doesn’t have to pay
    Give a woman free kids and you’ll find them in the dirt
    Learning how to carry on the family line of work
    It’s the man in the White House, the man under the steeple
    Passing out drugs to the American people
    I don’t believe in anything, nothing is free
    They’re feeding our people the Government Cheese

    Decline and fall, fall down baby
    Decline and fall, said fall way down now
    Decline and fall, fall down little mama
    Decline and fall, decline and fall

    Give a man a free ticket on a dead end ride
    And he’ll climb in the back even though nobody’s driving
    Too ******* lazy to crawl out of the wreck
    And he’ll rot there while he waits for the welfare check
    Going to hell in a handbag, can’t you see
    I ain’t gonna eat no Government Cheese

  • Funny, I don’t know any faithful, loyal catholics who use so many “ists’ in a row, but there he is doing it.

  • With respect to Father Matin. Again I see moree evidence of the clericalism that has characterized the Catholic left as it uses the laity to serve its efforts to take over the Church. Since 1979 they have been wanting a liberal pope. Looks like they have him.

Leave a Reply

February 14, 1929: Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre

Tuesday, February 14, AD 2017

Ironies abound in the Saint Valentine’s Day massacre by which Chicago gangster Al Capone sought to destroy his competitor gangster Adelard Cunin, known to infamy as George “Bugs” Moran.  Moran had made a failed attempt on Capone’s life, which led to Capone, leading the Italian dominated South Side Gang, to target Moran and Moran’s Irish dominated North Side Gang.  Capone had a false call made to Moran on February 13, 1929 tempting him with a truck load of liquor from Detroit that he could have at a bargain price.  Moran ordered that the truck deliver the liquor the next morning at 10:30 AM at the garage of the S.M.C. Cartage Company on North Clark Street where Moran kept his bootlegging trucks.  Instead, two of Capone’s men, disguised as cops, appeared at the garage and ordered the seven men present to line up against a wall.  Two professional killers then entered the garage with tommy-guns and, with the aid of the two fake cops, murdered the men, only gangster Frank Gusenberg survived long enough to make it to the hospital and honor the gangland code of silence prior to his death, refusing to say anything about who was responsible.  Ironies to take note of in this example of gangland savagery:

  1.  If Moran hadn’t slept in that morning he would have been among the dead.  Albert Weinshank, one of the dead, looked like Moran and probably when he was seen entering the garage caused Capone’s hit squad to go into action.
  2. Two of the seven men killed had the abysmal bad luck to simply be in the wrong place at the wrong time. One was optician Reinhardt Schwimmer who liked to gamble and palled around with members of the gang.  The other was mechanic John May who was working on a car.
  3. Moran was not put out of business by the murders, but kept control of his territory through the end of prohibition.  He would die in prison in 1957.
  4. The two probable Capone hit men involved in the Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre did not live to see another Valentine’s day.  The bodies of John Scalise and Albert Anselmi were found in the wee hours of the morning on May 8, 1929 on a lonely road near Hammond, Indiana.  They were joined in death by gangster Joseph Giunta.  The three men had been severely beaten and then shot to death.  It is likely that they had been involved in a plot against Capone.  Capone, ever a fanatic baseball fan, had worked them over with a bat before having his gunmen finish the task.
  5. Public revulsion against the Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre was so intense that the Federal government made a maximum effort to get Capone.  Capone’s tactical victory in the Massacre led directly to his eventual downfall for income tax evasion.
  6. Both Al Capone and Bugs Moran repented their sins before their deaths and may have stolen Heaven in the tradition established by Saint Dismas.
  7. I sat next to one of the last survivors of Al Capone’s gang back in the eighties during a Chamber of Commerce dinner.  Now a kindly great grandfather, he had gotten out of Chicago decades before and invested in farmland in Livingston County.  I resisted the temptation to ask him if any gangster bodies were buried in said farmland.

Continue reading...

2 Responses to February 14, 1929: Saint Valentine’s Day Massacre

  • I used to love watching that movie when it would run as the late movie when I was a kid.

  • In today’s American pop culture, Feb. 14 is only said to be Saint Valentine’s Day when murder is involved. If not, it’s merely “Valentine’s Day”.

    What’s next, March 17 becomes “Patrick’s Day”?

    Christians must push back against the forces of secular mutilation of the culture.

Leave a Reply

Vote Fraud? What Vote Fraud?

Tuesday, February 14, AD 2017



Democrats simultaneously deny that there is any vote fraud, and fight all measures to guarantee the security of the ballot from fraud.  Powerline gives us the latest development in a very old game:


Democrats hotly deny there is any vote fraud taking place in American elections. Funny that only Democrats seem sensitive about this charge. The asymmetry of outrage suggests something, I think. Once upon a time, Chicago Democrats justified their shenanigans by charging that downstate Illinois Republicans stole votes, too. And maybe they did.

Consider this note from our friend Roger Beckett, executive director of the Ashbrook Center at Ashland University in Ohio:

I received the letter below from the Department of Elections in the State of Delaware. After a couple phone calls to them, I learned that someone registered me to vote (with my correct Date of Birth and Social Security number) on July 12, 2016 in Wilmington, Delaware. As a Democrat. I have never registered to vote in Delaware. I have only ever registered to vote where I live, in Ohio. I checked my credit report, and this is not full-fledged identity theft. It appears to be just some new-fangled election fraud. 

I was asked by the good people in the Delaware Election Commissioner’s office to send a letter to them that they could forward to the Delaware’s Attorney General, which I will do.

Here is the letter, with Roger’s Social Security suffix and address blocked out (by me):

Beckett Registration

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Vote Fraud? What Vote Fraud?

  • How can the Democrats categorically assert no fraud and then simultaneously accuse Trump and the Russians to have colluded in theft of the election from Livia Caesar?

  • Here in New Hampshire, we wondered at how the federal candidates all won with narrow margins while our state office candidates won handily. It seems simple in retrospect that bussed-in non-residents didn’t care about our local contests but just came to put Clinton in the White House and Democrats in the US Congress.

  • After each of my parents died I informed the county Voter Registrar of his and her deaths. Each time I received letters stating that their names had been taken off the rolls.
    Years ago when I was a resident of a small city, all one had to do to vote was state one’s name and address to a poll worker with the voter rolls in plain view. Reading the rolls upside down I could have self identified as any female on the list. The first time I voted there I handed the poll worker my driver’s license. It was thrown back at me with a snarly, “We don’t need that. We trust you at your word”. That city and its county are known for being the last two to report on election night.

Leave a Reply

The Trump Melt Down and the Catholic Church

Monday, February 13, AD 2017



In my six decades I have never seen anything like, in American history, the meltdown and rabid hysteria that has seized the left since Donald Trump won the last Presidential election.  It is as if leftists awoke from a beautiful dream in which their political adversaries were forever vanquished to the, in their eyes, brutal reality of Donald Trump.  We are now seeing this same type of hysterical hatred being aimed against orthodox Catholics.  Carl Olsen, who I now designate the truthful chronicler for American Catholics of our bizarre age, at The Catholic World Report, gives us the details:


A couple of weeks ago I came across the following, written by Oscar Wilde some 125 years or so ago:

In old days men had the rack. Now they have the press. That is an improvement certainly. But still it is very bad, and wrong, and demoralising. Somebody – was it Burke? – called journalism the fourth estate. That was true at the time, no doubt. But at the present moment it really is the only estate. It has eaten up the other three. The Lords Temporal say nothing, the Lords Spiritual have nothing to say, and the House of Commons has nothing to say and says it. We are dominated by Journalism. In America the President reigns for four years, and Journalism governs for ever and ever. Fortunately, in America journalism has carried its authority to the grossest and most brutal extreme. As a natural consequence it has begun to create a spirit of revolt. People are amused by it, or disgusted by it, according to their temperaments. But it is no longer the real force it was.

It’s worth pondering in light of nearly any and all journalism, news (or “news”), and punditry today, even if Wilde didn’t happen to be a perfect prophet. After all, news itself has become news; in a certain way, for better or worse, much of “news” is simply discussion and debate about “news”, to the point that journalism and opinion don’t just overlap but become uneasy mates. In some cases, the opinion turns upon its mate, leaving only faint traces of journalistic remains scattered among the dense underbrush of innuendo, suggestion, implication, and overt subjective assertion.

A case in point is a February 7th New York Times’ article titled “Steve Bannon Carries Battles to Another Influential Hub: The Vatican”. Bannon, of course, has become the focal point of those on the left who are intent on branding President Trump a “fascist”, which is (along with “communist”) the word used by lazy, unlearned people who wish to silence or even destroy their political enemies (an online search for “Bannon” and “fascism” turns up endless examples). The piece opens with this:

When Stephen K. Bannon was still heading Breitbart News, he went to the Vatican to cover the canonization of John Paul II and make some friends. High on his list of people to meet was an archconservative American cardinal, Raymond Burke, who had openly clashed with Pope Francis.

In one of the cardinal’s antechambers, amid religious statues and book-lined walls, Cardinal Burke and Mr. Bannon — who is now President Trump’s anti-establishment eminence — bonded over their shared worldview. They saw Islam as threatening to overrun a prostrate West weakened by the erosion of traditional Christian values, and viewed themselves as unjustly ostracized by out-of-touch political elites.

“When you recognize someone who has sacrificed in order to remain true to his principles and who is fighting the same kind of battles in the cultural arena, in a different section of the battlefield, I’m not surprised there is a meeting of hearts,” said Benjamin Harnwell, a confidant of Cardinal Burke who arranged the 2014 meeting.

First, what is an “archconservative” cardinal? The term is political, of course, because the Times, like almost all big media outlets, simply cannot think or exist outside of political categories. Cardinal Burke, by any sane and knowledgeable measure, is a thoroughly orthodox Catholic when it comes to Church belief and practice. (Note also that the piece refers to Cardinal Burke twice as “Mr. Burke”. Strange.)

Secondly, is it really so outrageous to believe that Islam—mindful even of all the different divisions and groups within Islam—desires to conquer the West, especially given old history, new history, and the statements that come from a wide range of Islamic groups and leaders?

Thirdly, lest ancient history be too easily forgotten, Cardinal Burke was named prefect of the Supreme Tribunal of the Apostolic Signatura in July 2008 by Pope Benedict XVI (the same pope whose first encyclical melted minds over at the Times). He was removed from that post in September 2014 by Pope Francis, in a surprising move that took place shortly before the Extraordinary Synod of Bishops met in the fall of that same year. The chronology is notable because the recent Times piece, as quoted above, suggests that a Cardinal Burke-Bannon conspiracy was underway in April 2014, quite some time before Cardinal Burke was suddenly demoted. As Terry Mattingly states in a helpful piece at Get Religion:

The timing of the meeting is fascinating and, for journalists, a bit problematic. They key is that Bannon is in Rome to attend the canonization rites for Pope John Paul II (who for some reason loses his papal title in the lede) – which took place on April 27, 2014.

Meanwhile, the much-discussed public clashes between Cardinal Burke and Pope Francis began the following October, during the Extraordinary General Assembly of the Synod of Bishops. The red-flag on that whole affair was a Times piece – “Pope Demotes U.S. Cardinal Critical of His Reform Agenda” – that ran on Nov. 8, 2014.

So in what sense was Cardinal Burke already “openly” clashing with Pope Francis at the time of the St. John Paul II rites, months before the conservative cardinals public actions at the synod?

Perhaps unwittingly, the piece lets the front paws of the cat out of the bag when it states, “Until now, Francis has marginalized or demoted the traditionalists, notably Cardinal Burke, carrying out an inclusive agenda on migration, climate change and poverty that has made the pope a figure of unmatched global popularity, especially among liberals.” Put another way, the problem with Cardinal Burke, in the eyes of the Times and Co. is not that he’s a heretic (since he isn’t) or a schismatic (because he isn’t), but because he’s not in tune politically with an overtly political pontificate that has increasingly shown itself friendly to a wide range of left-wing, secular perspectives and assumptions.

Thus: “Yet in a newly turbulent world, Francis is suddenly a lonelier figure. Where once Francis had a powerful ally in the White House in Barack Obama, now there is Mr. Trump and Mr. Bannon, this new president’s ideological guru.” (As I recently remarked to a friend, I sometimes think Francis acts more like a politician than a pope, while President Obama, during his two terms in office, acted more like a pope—that is, a religious figure leading a religious movement—than a politician.)

Mattingly points out that the piece provides no real sourcing or quotes to back up its central assertion about Cardinal Burke and Bannon (and Trump) working to undermine and battle Pope Francis. “At this point, it is clear that the Times needs to provide information proving that these Roman Rad Trans exist and that they have had extensive contacts with Trump, through Bannon. We are not talking about journalists and chattering-class folks. We are talking about actual source inside church structures. Right?

As bad as the Times piece is, it is a Valentine’s card compared to an op-ed in yesterday’s Washington Post by Emma-Kate Symons, titled, “How Pope Francis can cleanse the far-right rot from the Catholic Church”. Even accounting for it being an opinion piece, it is one of the most vile, slanderous pieces of trash I’ve ever read in a mainstream news publication, which is saying something.

Continue reading...

27 Responses to The Trump Melt Down and the Catholic Church

  • What is this “Huffpo” about which you write?

    Anyhow, liar liberals (redundant) only “roll out” the Pope when his comments (not ex cathedra) “validate” the heinous narratives. Sadly, this Pope seems to do that with unhappy regularity.

  • Which of course lends credence to talk of a highly coordinated globalist efforts which involve the Vatican at varied levels.

  • Kind of funny to watch the sheer boogeyman nature this guy has taken on. Here’s another hysterical article for those curious. Meanwhile the One Who Used to be a Catholic Apologist writes things like, “Francis, Bannon, and the Neopelagian Crisis. Bannon is a seducer of the faithful.” and “Bannon is the single most dangerous and toxic Catholic in American public life. He has figured out that prolife conservative Catholics are now radically immunocompromised to the rise of the ethnonationalist blood and soil fertility cult swill he advocates and is doing his best to foment schism against Peter. . . . Any lunatic hankering for war with China and laboring to foster the rise of ethnonationalism in Europe should not be on the National Security Council or anywhere near the White House.”

    Honestly have these folks NEVER understood the fable of the boy who cried wolf?

  • As I recently remarked to a friend, I sometimes think Francis acts more like a politician than a pope, while President Obama, during his two terms in office, acted more like a pope—that is, a religious figure leading a religious movement—than a politician.

    Also, that’s a brilliant quote right there.

    “For you are men sacred to me, for I, the Lord, your God am sacred.”
    “We hold these truths to be self-evident that all men are created equal…”in sovereign personhood.
    The Supreme Sovereign Being is three Sovereign Persons in one God, Creator, Redeemer and Sanctifier, sacred, unchangeable, and immutable.
    Man’s Sovereign Personhood is sacred, created in original innocence, morally and legally innocent, irreplaceable and self-determined. Man’s Sovereign Personhood is endowed at the very first moment of his existence, his existence being brought into being by The Supreme Sovereign Being, man’s body and soul being endowed by his Creator with innate human rights enumerated and codified as “unalienable” civil rights by the sovereign state; the sovereign state that is instituted by man’s sovereign personhood.
    “that among these rights are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”, The Unanimous Declaration of Independence of the United States ratified by every state.
    “The enumeration in The Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” Amendment IX.
    The Sovereign Personhood of man enables all men to be self-determined, that is, to accomplish himself, to seek and find his destiny and to satisfy his intellect. In addition, man is free to express his talents and pursue his “Happiness” even unto eternal life, in original innocence, complete moral and legal innocence, with integrity, and the free will endowed by his “Creator” in freedom.
    In the beginning of man’s existence, he enjoys complete moral and legal, original innocence, the substance of his sovereign personhood. At the age of reason, usually about seven years of age and the initiation into adulthood about fourteen years of age and the emancipation from parental dependency at about eighteen years of age, the human being, through his sovereign personhood, accepts his responsibility and engages his freedom to pursue his Happiness and destiny into the being of the transcendent, metaphysical, rational, immortal, human soul of his sovereign personhood.
    If the rational human being makes irrational choices or chooses to violate Justice, injury to his sovereign personhood becomes a reality that radiates throughout his being, mortal and immortal. The man loses his sovereignty over himself incrementally as to the weight and grievousness of his crimes. The man becomes an outlaw.
    A man with damaged or incrementally violated sovereign personhood can only institute the sovereign state to the degree that his sovereignty over himself is viable.
    Only through the crime of capital one homicide, murder in the first degree, does a man lose his sovereign personhood. Having taken another man’s life, the murderer must live his victim’s life, unto eternity, unless through total and perfect contrition, the capital one murderer expires with grief over his crimes and releases the sovereign personhood of his victim’s life.
    God let the first murderer, Cain, live because the life Cain was living was Abel’s life. Abel must have forgiven Cain as he lay dying. Abel’s blood cried out to God from the ground and God heard Abel’s cry for Justice. Cain became a wanderer living Abel’s life, without a life of his own, as a sign of Justice; Abel’s Justice through God’s love for Abel. If the victim refuses to forgive his murderer, or the murderer does not expire with grief over his crime against mankind, the murderer must be put to death to release the murderer’s victim. Living the life of his victim, the murderer must be put to death. The murderer’s victim is dead.
    Other instances of total obliteration of a man’s sovereign personhood, are bloodlust in war and treason and the embrace of atheism, the denial of his and all of mankind’s “Creator”. Obliteration is not annihilation, the sovereign personhood of a man, once created even though discarded, remains as a testimony to his self-destruction and the Justice of God.
    It goes without saying, that a man who has denied his sovereign personhood and obliterated Justice in his soul, becoming an outlaw, has no authentic authority to institute the sovereign nation. His lack of Justice and sovereignty over himself cannot be imposed on a Just and sovereign nation.
    Sovereign personhood is endowed to man by his “Creator” in original innocence at existence. The sovereign person enjoys his sovereignty over himself. This is who man is. Personality is what man makes of himself, using his sovereign personhood. Obliterating his sovereign personhood through violation of Justice brings man to a criminal personality. The cult of a just man, saints and statesmen, is rejoicing. The cult of an unjust man, or criminal, is fear and trepidation. Enabling an unjust man in his pursuit of damnation is giving aid and comfort to the enemy. End
    Rene Descartes said: “I think therefore, I am.” giving rise to the cult of personality to individuals who think and otherwise, disregarding individuals who are in being. Rene Descartes meant to say: “I am, therefore I think; I am, therefore, I will; I am, therefore, I am.”

  • Do not ask me how this got posted here. I was trying to post on OPEN THREAD. I apologize.

  • Must i be banished to “Duhland”?

  • “Journalism governs for ever and ever. Fortunately, in America journalism has carried its authority to the grossest and most brutal extreme.”
    The media is 95% of the problem by pushing America to the extreme and the real damage happens when extreme ideas become part of our educational system and even found in leaders of our Church. They have led the younger generation to mistrust and doubt the practices of their parents. We have seen generations cut off from one another. It doesn’t matter how good of a parent they really were.
    Take Archbishop Charles Chaput (who I agree with on most things) comment last week about the refugee ban:
    “Being ‘pro-life’ involves a great deal more than a defense of unborn life, though it should naturally start there,” he said. “We also have grave responsibilities to the poor, the infirm, the elderly and the immigrant — responsibilities that will shape our encounter with the God of justice when we meet him face-to-face. There are few embodiments of the weak more needy or compelling than refugees.”
    Most people are moderate on the issue of refugees and immigration. Those who are truly pro-life are not the same people who are part of the complete restrictive extremist position.
    But the argument is completely accepted in American culture. If you don’t support X, then you don’t care about the poor, infirm, or elderly. X usually is taking the most liberal position. Take the liberal things the left has thrown in for X over the past 60 years. Most of them now sound ridiculous. The media is responsible for driving us to extremes. It sells papers to find just one rich Pastor to use as X. If a Pastor then seen buying a car they are now part of the shameful “rich” religious leaders. Most of the time in America we have been driven to the most liberal positions. Colleges and our religious leaders have picked up on this and this has led to a cutting off of one generation from another on false pretenses

  • The left’s vociferous attack on Trump is truly bizarre when you consider that Trump isn’t even a conservative. Hell, he’s hardly a Republican.

    “Carl Olsen, who I now designate the truthful chronicler for American Catholics of our bizarre age,..”

    More like “selectively” truthful chronicler.

  • More like “selectively” truthful chronicler.

    Well, goodness, I’ll take it. Kinda like “select wines”? Heh. Sorry I cannot get to everything.

  • Kind of funny to watch the sheer boogeyman nature this guy has taken on. Here’s another hysterical article for those curious.

    The portside is nothing if not assiduous about reciting the talking points. You’ll recall the bogeyman of the Bush II administration was Karl Rove, a fairly unremarkable campaign technician.

  • What you do get to Carl you do first rate. I only wish all Catholic journalists were as concerned with factual accuracy, the prime virtue of all journalism.

  • To be sure, Carl, you cannot get to everything. But you did manage to get around to publishing a puff piece by a popular priest (now a bishop) extolling the “depth of Catholic faith” of a pro-abort comedian and TV personality as well as a hideous “consequentialist” screed by Mark Shea.

    Neither of these pieces should have passed editorial muster at any respectable Catholic publication.

    I would agree that what you write is normally very good. But you are also the editor of that publication and you bear responsibility for what makes it on its pages. I am sure you would hold the editors at the New York Times and Washington Post responsible for what you correctly called a “slanderous” piece of trash. After all, the buck stops with the editor, not the writer. But yet, when editors at Catholic publications like Catholic World Report publish stuff like the two pieces cited above and continue to stand by them, why should they be taken seriously when they decry the secular mainstream media?

  • How about “Ministry of Truth, Fiction Department”? I think we could use that for a large part of the media. Hat tip: George Orwell 1984.

  • All of this means that Cardinal Burke, Trump and Bannon are doing the right thing. May God be with them. May we pray for them.


  • One of the great charges against the Jesuits has been that the order is too concerned with political power. Another is that they favor moral laxity. Which is why many opposed making them Cardinals much less pope. Now we have a Jesuit pope.

  • shut up, mockenridge

  • All have their say on this blog, unless I decide otherwise.

  • If one takes a close look at the tactics of the left in agitation, agit-prop, censorship of news, stifling free speech wherever possible, support of radical social change idolizing the deviant and condemning the convention, one detects strong strains of 1933. Both sides of my family left Germany during Kulturkampf and the remainder were never heard from after 1941. History often repeats and the second time is not always farce.

  • I didn’t/wouldn’t vote Trump, but don’t consider myself a “leftie” as implied in this article. I’m a complex person, yet you choose to paint all who voted in two categories, left, and right. In this column, the left are the bad people. Give me a courageous Republican cut from the cloth of John McCain and I’ll be a “righty.” I don’t like Trump’s character and voted accordingly. I’m distressed that the church hails this man. You wouldn’t include his insults in any of your sermons, yet subtly supported him. I was just comping to grips with the Coverup reality, now this.

  • “I’m distressed that the church hails this man.”

    But the Church does not. The current powers that be within the Church are quite anti-Trump and are attempting to falsely connect their adversaries within the Church to Trump.

    As for the left being bad people, what was the source of the persecution of the Church during the last administration where the Little Sisters of the Poor were demanded to obey Caesar rather than Christ?

  • One of the great charges against the Jesuits has been that the order is too concerned with political power. Another is that they favor moral laxity. Which is why many opposed making them Cardinals much less pope. Now we have a Jesuit pope.

    I’m recalling the scandals out of the house of formation in the California province in 2002. I think it was The Economist who said they weren’t photographs found in a spotty novice’s drawer, they were photographs the province put up on a web server for the world to see. Even before the scandal, the number of seminarians had fallen to such a low level that it was consistent with fewer than 30 ordinations per year (when there were about 250 ordinations per year ca. 1962, if I’m not mistaken). One rather caustic dissident in the Society described its charisms as ‘single-malt scotch and sodomy’.

  • Yes, all true.
    Something wicked this way comes.
    And it may come via the Vatican.

  • This past election was a choice between two egotists. I believe that we will all be much better off with a failed Trump than a successful Clinton. The rest is just a matter of details.

  • The Times piece is bad journalism – the WAPO editorial is shameful. I don’t know if this fits in anywhere, but we might recall in that 2015 Bergoglio stated that Trump was not a Christian because he wants to build walls. Out of the blizzard of odd and eccentric quips coming from Bergoglio that is the one that struck me as the most outrageous. Are we to believe that the a Roman Pope has second sight? Can he announce that a man he’s never met and knows little about is not a Christian, even though Trump says he is. Was Bergoglio excommunicating Trump from whatever denomination he owes loyalty to? Can Bergoglio just tell what’s in Donald Trump’s heart? Does a political position held in fact but almost every country on earth (and if you look at the EU today, it looks like legal wall building has a whole lot of traction) mean that people that hold that view cannot receive God’s grace. Am I a Catholic if I think Bergoglio has been and continues to be a catastrophe for the Church? I just don’t understand why a devout Cardinal would need inspiration on the part of a right wing American journalist to make him wary of a Pope that is making a foggy proto-socialist economic and political program as the Church’s own. He’d find Bergoglio misled just by watching the Vatican’s Juan Peron in action.

  • (W)e might recall in that 2015 Bergoglio stated that Trump was not a Christian because he wants to build walls.
    –Eric Bergerud

    Then we’d be recalling Fake News. Read the interview in context and with generosity not hostility toward Pope Francis. He did not name Trump at all in the remarks to which Mr. Bergerud refers. Reporting that Pope Francis attacked Trump specifically was an invention of the Fake News media.

Leave a Reply

PopeWatch: Zeitgeist

Monday, February 13, AD 2017



PopeWatch has long believed that the key to understanding the Pope is the way in which his native Argentina impacted his thought.  Over the weekend PopeWatch was reading a fascinating article published in 2015 that looked at the Pope’s intellectual background based on the dominant intellectual trends in Argentina during his formative years.  The author, Claudio I. Remeseira, summarizes the main aspects of his thought that explains much of his papacy:

Francis’ mindset straddles this divide. One Anti-Modern trait of his thinking is his mistrust of Liberalism. Despite his constant appeals to political tolerance, Francis’ political thought is rooted in a pre-modern, organicist view of the community as foundation of social and political life. Liberal democracy and the modern doctrine of human rights are the antithesis of that view. In Evangelii gaudium, the word “people” appears 164 times; the word “democracy”, not once.

Another trait is his hostility toward capitalism. Far for being inspired in any left-wing or Marxist philosophy, Francis’ anti-capitalism comes down from the European right-wing writers of the early 20th century, who in turn found their source of inspiration in the Middle Ages. At the final stage of the Cold War, John Paul II made a timid move towards accepting the market as an autonomous social force. In the age of the anti-globalization movement, Francis would have none of it. His critique of capitalism seems to go even further than the objections traditionally made by Catholic Social Teaching since Leo XIII’s Rerum Novarum. It is when indicting the world’s economic woes that Francis strikes his most prophetic tone (which, by the way, is another characteristic of Argentinian theology). The encyclical Laudato si, his great jeremiad against the evils of capitalism, has established Francis as one of the world’s foremost critics of Neoliberalism.

But, did the old adversary of Liberation Theology really turn into a radical leftist, as some critics on the right say? A quarter of a century after the demise of the Soviet Union and when the other world-Communist power, China, has morphed into its own kind of State-steered Capitalism, there is more room for the Pope to openly condemn social injustice without raising the suspicion of being a revolutionary. In any case, what Francis probably has in mind is not a socialist but some sort of populist economic system — something, perhaps, closer to a 21st-century update of the Peronist social-welfare state. Some of his initiatives, such as the World Encounter of Popular Movements, seemed to have been conceived with the intention of becoming the Solidarność of a post-Industrial era.

That era, already unfolding before us, has in Francis’ view one preeminent protagonist: the masses of the poor and the excluded, the disenfranchised of the world. They are the Peoples of God, the pilgrims of the Trinitarian God’s journey on this planet. To Francis, the mission of the Church is indistinguishable from them — it must be a Church of poverty and for the poor. Herein lies his true radicalism: an uncompromising identification between the suffering of the poor and Christ, and his determination to persuade the world to join in that mission.

Continue reading...

7 Responses to PopeWatch: Zeitgeist

  • The pope got his views on economics from European right-wing writers who looked back to the Middle Ages and not from Marxists? I don’t think so. This is the same pope who gladly accepted a sacrilegious crucifix with Christ on a hammer and sickle. Also, all of his “friends” in high office are at least socialists.

  • I don’t buy it. If the pope is against neoliberalism, why does he prominently ally himself with the neoliberal globalist establishment (Jeffrey Sachs, Paul Ehrlich, George Soros, U.N.dignitaries, etc.)? Why does he favor the same causes as they do, using much the same language (open borders, environmentalism, population control)? He decries capitalism, sure, but then so do many of his globalist partners. As Father of Seven points out, he seems never to have met a socialist “popular movement” not to his liking.

    As far as I can tell, there are two options: the pope is either an unwitting tool of the globalists–the most useful of idiots–or he is their conscious ally.

  • As far as I can tell, there are two options: the pope is either an unwitting tool of the globalists–the most useful of idiots–or he is their conscious ally.

    I think you’re assuming more sophistication on the part of the Pope than is actually there. Consider the environment of Pope Francis coming of age. Back in 1963, the American University Field Staff published an anthology on the evolution of political life in a raft of 3d world countries, Argentina included. The scholar writing about Argentina remarked that the political culture was bereft of a notion of mutually-beneficial exchange, hence politics had degenerated into a contest for power that income might be redistributed to one set of clientele or another, zero sum. The Pope also seems to conceive of ordinary business activity as a set of injuries done by criminals against abstractions in his mind (“the poor”). Law enforcement and employers are just big bad wolves to him.

  • Argentina is a basket case. It’s politics, economics, philosophy, it’s entire outlook on life is a failure. Blessed with natural resources, the Argentine state is maybe the b8ggwst failure on the world stage, rivaled by Mexico. In Bergoglio’s Argentina, the US is hated, but no Argentine would pass on the opportunity to move to the US.
    Argentina’s population is similar to Canada and Poland. Both nations have a superior economy. Poland has surpassed Argentina in less than 30 Yeats of being a free nation.
    The mission of the Church I’d to lead souls to Christ, rich, poor, middle class, whatever and wherever.
    The current Pontiff does not think so such because he is incapable of it. He is a Caudillo Pope, a bully who squashes all who disagree with him. The greater failure is not Bergoglio but the cardinals who elected him.

  • South Sudan is a basket case. Argentina’s merely a disappointment. It’s political life is far more orderly than it was in 1963 and it remains (bar Chile and Urguay) the most affluent Latin American country (and one of the few with a homicide rate under 10 per 100,000). Still, the Pope’s understanding of his world likely gelled when Argentina was a politico-economic mess.

  • To me the Pope has no business engaging in public political or economic discussion. His job is to be the Vicar of Christ and do what Christ would do if He were here, which, as far as we know, is still the salvation of souls. How many times have we listened to Pope Francis and were inspired to become more holy ourselves? How about never?

    One thing Pope Francis could do right now is to advocate the increased use of the sacrament of Confession. But can any of imagine him doing such a thing? Of course not. Unfortunately, Pope Francis is all about the things of this world, i.e, government handouts, antipathy towards Capitalism, and denigration of orthodox Catholics. As a result he fails in his mission of doing what Christ would do.

  • I’m still waiting for somebody to show me where in the bible Jesus taught and directed his disciples to go get government to take care of the poor. Did not Jesus say, “You will always have the poor.” Why is the leadership in the Church so willing to turn over to government the responsibility of “caring for the poor?”

Leave a Reply

Jesuitical 20: Georgetown Prof on Slavery and Rape

Sunday, February 12, AD 2017



Part 20 of my ongoing survey of the follies of many modern day Jesuits. A Georgetown Professor assures us that slavery and rape isn’t so bad as long as the slavers and rapists follow the religion of peace.  Rod Dreher gives us the details:


An academic reader writes:

This news item stands out if only because — at last! — reality beats Houellebecq. Who’d a thunk? Or maybe Houellebecq was prophetical in his novel, “Soumission”.

What’s he talking about? News that Jonathan Brown, a tenured Georgetown professor and holder of the Al-Waleed bin Talal Chair in Islamic Civilization at Georgetown University, has delivered a lecture defending slavery and rape non-consensual sex. Umar Lee, a Muslim who heard the lecture and was offended by it, posted about it here. He wrote:

While the lecture was supposed to be about slavery in Islam Brown spent the majority of the lecture talking about slavery in the United States, the United Kingdom and China. When discussing slavery in these societies Brown painted slavery as brutal and violent (which it certainly was). When the conversation would briefly flip to historic slavery in the Arab and Turkish would slavery was described by Brown in glowing terms. Indeed, according to Brown, slaves in the Muslim World lived a pretty good life.

I thought the Muslim community was done with this dishonest North Korean style of propaganda. Obviously not. Brown went on to discuss the injustices of prison labor in America and a myriad of other social-ills. Absent from his talk (until challenged) was any recognition of the rampant abuse of workers in the Gulf, the thousands of workers in the Gulf dying on construction sites, the South Asian child camel-jockeys imported into the United Arab Emirates to race camels under harsh conditions, or the horrific conditions of prisoners in the Muslim World (the latest news being 13,000 prisoners executed in Syria).

Brown constructs a world where the wrongs of the West excuse any wrongs (if he believes there are any) in the Muslim World.

“Slavery wasn’t racialized” in Muslim societies, Brown stated. That would be believable if it weren’t well-known black people in the Arab World and African-Americans in this country weren’t constantly referred to as abeed (slaves) simply because the color of the skin.

Brown described slavery in the Muslim World as kinder and gentler. The Arab poet who wrote “before you buy the slave buy the stick… for he is nejas (impure)” is perhaps a better description of Arab slavery than what Brown offered.
“Slaves were protected by shariah (Islamic Law)” Brown stated with no recognition of the idealized legal version of slavery and slavery as it was practiced. In this version of slavery there is an omission of kidnappings, harems, armies of eunuchs, and other atrocities.

Read the whole thing. Umar Lee is furious.

Continue reading...

9 Responses to Jesuitical 20: Georgetown Prof on Slavery and Rape

  • A few days ago I had a similar but brief discussion with a spoiled brat narcissistic millennial feminist who, having once styled herself as “healthy fit goddess” (but yet insisting that she is a refugee from central Europe while jet setting around the world) asked me if I was asserting that there is no maltreatment of women in business within the US. I responded, “Not within my industry. What about yours?” We work in the same industry though we are unacquainted with each other, and in that industry abusing women can and will get you fired (unless you are former NRC Chairperson like Gregory Jackzo appointed by Obama in 2010 – then the rules are different). She, being a part of public relations, dared not respond for otherwise she would defame the very business and industry of which she is a member and unwilling to do that was she. I went on with the following link, knowing that she had proudly bragged about having once visited Iran and how wonderful the Iranian Republic is:

    Of course she didn’t respond. Like most narcissists in the West, she knows neither the Koran (that book of iniquity and depravity) nor the real history of Islam (raping, pillaging and blood-shedding its way through 1400 years of human history). For her, history started at her birth if not her breakfast.

    Liberal. Progressive. Feminist. Democrat. Narcissist.

    The five most vile words in the English language.

  • Truth: Ask any savant furiously running through the streets screaming “Refugees welcome!”

    Islam means never having to say, “I’m sorry.”

  • This being taught here in the US makes me so angry that I could probably get violent over it. We have Islamic studies at more than one university here in my state. I have brought their promotion of slavery of women up several times & no one wants to touch it.

  • In 2003, Sheik Saleh Al-Fawzan, a member of the Senior Council of Clerics,
    Saudi Arabia’s highest religious body, had this to say about Islam and slavery:
    “Slavery is a part of Islam… slavery is a part of jihad, and jihad will remain
    as long as there is Islam… (those who argue that slavery has been abolished are)
    ignorant, not scholars, they are merely writers. Whoever says such things is an infidel.”

  • Aside from the ‘arabs’ being the major players in the transatlantic slave trade, I found some other least known facts horrifying. The rowers in the Ottoman ships at the Battle of Lepanto were Christian galley slaves. They were captured in previous conquests. Or the elite Ottoman infantry, the Janissaries, who were slaves and Christian boys taken from their families to be trained strictly into loyal soldiers & bodyguards. Imagine your son being taken from you, a dhimmi, to be raised to fight against your own people. We have a modern day example-Kayla Mueller- who was made the sex slave of Jihad John. She is one of thousands of Christian & Yazidi captured for sex slavery- which is perfectly acceptable in Islam.
    The harems- full of captive sex slaves, and wives, guarded by eunuch slaves, are the separate part of a muslim household devoted to one man. This is all acceptable.
    To go back to my first least known facts- google transatlantic slave trade and you will have to search for a reference to where all the slaves came from- who was selling them. Very one-sided.

  • He who pays the piper calls the tune.

  • Saudi Arabia is the home and treasury of Wahhabism, a most aggressive, violence species of Islamic terrorism.

    Islam is exactly like all the other religions as long as you refuse to learn about it and don’t get murdered by it.

    Here’s the Truth, all you need to know about Islam. It’s a religion of peace and love only for Muslim males, not for kaffirs (lower than Jews in Nazi Germany), Muslim women, and kaffir women (lowest). Everything beautiful in the Koran is reserved for the “House of Islam/Peace” Muslims; everyone outside Islam is in the “House of War/desultory, eternal war.” There may exist good Muslims. Are they shamming friendship and toleration until . . . ? Remember, “They also serve who only stand and wait.” – John Milton

  • Saudi Arabia is the home and treasury of Wahhabism, a most aggressive, violence species of Islamic terrorism.

    Saudi foreign policy is, for the most part, a drab Machivellian affair. Since 1924, they’ve never participated in any war bar a supporting role in the 1st Gulf War and supporting roles in counter-insurgency programs in neighboring countries (i.e. Oman and Yemen). They passed subsidies to insurgencies (contra the Soviets in Afghanistan) and have paid some protection money to the PLO. They have cultural programs (e.g. financing mosques abroad) which are an irritant. They’re basically a status quo power and not much of a threat to anyone.

  • Malachi Martin opened my eyes about the Jesuits.Everyone should read him.

Leave a Reply

Quotes Suitable for Framing: Abraham Lincoln

Sunday, February 12, AD 2017

The dogmas of the quiet past, are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise — with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew, and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.

Abraham Lincoln, Annual Message to Congress, December 1, 1862

Continue reading...

3 Responses to Quotes Suitable for Framing: Abraham Lincoln

  • To those who stood their ground, the public square in front of Worse than Murder Inc., you succeed in raising US higher in heart, mind and soul. De-funding death camps like Planned Murder is saving ourselves and our Country. Thank you patriots unaware.

  • For 44 years Church hierarchy hasn’t shared the urgency.

    “Abortion is murder.” Repeat these three words in response to each and very bleat by your typical, pro-abortion nincompoop.

    Reminds me that Democrats haven’t been this bat-crap crazy since Lincoln freed their slaves.

  • If I’m not mistaken, 12 February is Abraham Lincoln’s birth date. It once was a National Holiday, regardless of what day of the week. Similarly, Washington’s birth date is 22 February another former national holiday. I don’t celebrate “presidents’ day” because Barack Hussein Obama and Jimmeh Carter.

    Also, 11 November was known as “Armistice Day.” Now, it’s “Veterans’ Day.”

    All that was before the elites determined that the lower classes need three-day weekends.

    I’m old enough to remember. God gave us memory that we might have America in 2017.

Leave a Reply

4 Responses to Goldilocks and the Purple Mattress

Leave a Reply